Traditional family key to world peace: Pope

[Mare Tranquillity]

What nonsense! The two most important commandments are love god and love your neighbor.

In what ridiculous ethical standard is prostitution a form of love, hmmm? Or was it sexual relations with a married man? Perhaps it is the same ethical standard you are promoting through homosexual marriages?


I believe he was more interested in condemning sin -- not individuals. But feel free to turn everything into a gender issue.

Okay, Nums, which one of those two commandments says that when two people sin that the man goes home scot-free and the woman gets stoned to death by a bunch of other men? Your religious views encourage a bigoted attitude towards people who aren't exactly like you and rather than use the "love thy neighbor as thyself" or even the "judge not" part of Scripture you focus on the Biblical condemnations and try to hurt those people who don't measure up to your standards.

The Bible is largely nonsense, that a god-like figure like Jesus would condemn the actions of only one person when two had committed the same sin is idiotic, but consistent with the values of the patriarchal culture that wrote the Bible.

As an aside, I would like to note that in all the posts of yours that I have read on this site I have never seen you advocate those two most important commandments.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The family is the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL GROUP UNIT OF SOCIETY. Suspect all you wish. It doesn't change this basic principle.

No one is arguing that fact, what we are arguing is that poorly-educated Bible-beaters don't get to define "family" for everybody on Earth. Sorry, but your narrow definition is not God's Truth even if you post it all in caps.

If I were denying equality, then I would insist that everyone become heterosexual. Is it too much to ask you use some of that gray matter between your ears?

Much of what you post is done for the sake of argument only. You would change everyone to heterosexuals if you had the power, but since you don't you do the next best thing by trying to use religious dogma to disenfranchise them legally. I also note that you rely far too much on derogatory comments about other posters--probably because your arguments are weak or fallacious.

I do not live in the us. You do not know me so I would appreciate it if you restrict your opinions to things that you know.

I can only go by what you post, Nums. Lots of other countries have similar laws to the US which grant special rights to heterosexuals based on religious dogma.

And once again, the argument I am making is based on the universal declaration of human rights and the rights of children -- not some religious dogma.

Once again it should be noted as it was earlier in this thread that the Universal Declaration... doesn't mandate discrimination towards gay people, nor does it explicitly support your arguments. You are doing what Christians have always done by taking things and redefining or reinterpreting them to suit your own agenda. In the end it's always the same: simple-minded and bigoted attacks based on religious beliefs dearly held but poorly supported.

All of which are based on the conjugal union of man and woman.

Says the infallible Nums speaking ex cathedra from his belly-button. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. You don't have anymore authority to define anyone else's relationships than we have to define yours. None of us are attacking your relationships, what drives you to attack others?

You are ignorant and foolish if you are unaware of the countless missionaries flung in god knows where, risking life and limb and a comfortable life, just to make an infinitessimal difference on god's green earth.

You absolutely have no right belittling their efforts and painting these good people in a bad light just so you can feel good about yourself and your ridiculous infatuation with another man's anal passage.

Well, first off, I'm a female and your silly personal attacks--though in very bad taste--don't really bother me. Once again, you resort to personal attacks because you don't have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion.

I have every right to speak about the way that Christians have raped this planet and committed genocide on indigenous peoples everywhere. You seem to think that proselytizing improves the world and that is something for which there is very little evidence and no proof. If you would simply read more about the history of your own religion you will discover that it has a bloody history and that the monolithic Christian church has stood foursquare against every civil rights movement in history. Tell us how the Crusaders were improving the Earth, what about the Inquisition? The Church was against women's right to own property, against their right to vote, Hell, Nums, the Church at one time maintained that women didn't even have souls. When doctors first were able to fix birth defects like cleft palates and club feet the Church argued against it saying that God made those people crippled because He wanted them that way. Hello? What did Christianity do to the indigenous peoples of the Americas? It was Christianity that accepted slavery based on Scripture--scriptures that are still in the Bible today.

If you are going to be an apologist for the abuses of Christianity down through history you are going to need to start early and pack a lunch. It was Christians just like yourself who drove me away from the Christianity. I think the teachings of Jesus are excellent, but hate-mongers have so corrupted His message that most Christians I've met don't even pay lipservice to the example He set.

 

[Coyote]

I have always loved the two commandments: love god with all your heart and love your neighbor like yourself.

To me, that says we should not be making judgements based on the sexuality of consenting adults. People quote the Bible as saying it is an "abomination". But so is eating shellfish.

Every time there is a topic on homosexuality someone invariably has to start talking about the physical aspect of it. When we are talk about heterosexual activities - no one does that. No one talks about an obsession with a woman's bearded clam. Homosexuals are people, not sexual acts.

 

[heyjude]

The traditional family throughout history has been the foremost source of abuse of women and children. Rape, child molestation, beatings, and emotional abuse abound in family units. I think, from my own observation, that most people would have been better of if they had never met their father.

BTW, the only thing that all gays have in common is having been raised by straight people.

 

[numinus]

Okay, Nums, which one of those two commandments says that when two people sin that the man goes home scot-free and the woman gets stoned to death by a bunch of other men? Your religious views encourage a bigoted attitude towards people who aren't exactly like you and rather than use the "love thy neighbor as thyself" or even the "judge not" part of Scripture you focus on the Biblical condemnations and try to hurt those people who don't measure up to your standards.

The Bible is largely nonsense, that a god-like figure like Jesus would condemn the actions of only one person when two had committed the same sin is idiotic, but consistent with the values of the patriarchal culture that wrote the Bible.

As an aside, I would like to note that in all the posts of yours that I have read on this site I have never seen you advocate those two most important commandments.

If you are going to debate me on christianity, you might want to actually know it.

Sin is an external condition that does harm to people. To borrow jesus' analogy, the sick needs a physician in the same way that sinners need forgiveness and redemption. He is criticizing sin while trying to save the sinner.

He forgave the woman, her tormentors and -- from faith -- the entire human existence with nothing more than a mild reminder to sin no more. Did he run after the man who was sinning with the woman? Frankly, that seems irrelevant to the fact of universal forgiveness.

This is a radical departure from judaic law which was the whole point of his ministry.

 

[numinus]

No one is arguing that fact, what we are arguing is that poorly-educated Bible-beaters don't get to define "family" for everybody on Earth. Sorry, but your narrow definition is not God's Truth even if you post it all in caps.

What is it with you and bible-beaters, eh?

The sentence I posted is (again) from the udhr - which you insist is from the bible. How many more times do I need to say this before you give your puny mind leave to understand, eh?

Much of what you post is done for the sake of argument only. You would change everyone to heterosexuals if you had the power, but since you don't you do the next best thing by trying to use religious dogma to disenfranchise them legally. I also note that you rely far too much on derogatory comments about other posters--probably because your arguments are weak or fallacious.

I really have very little interest reading your opinions of me, or of anything else WITHOUT FACTUAL NOR LOGICAL BASIS.

I can only go by what you post, Nums. Lots of other countries have similar laws to the US which grant special rights to heterosexuals based on religious dogma.

By all means -- go by my post. For starters, you might want to drop that 'religous dogma' crap since I am not using it in this argument.

Once again it should be noted as it was earlier in this thread that the Universal Declaration... doesn't mandate discrimination towards gay people,[/QUOTE]

Of course it doesn't. Saying that the NATURAL family is the fundamental group unit of society in no way discriminates gay people. They can still go on their merry way.

nor does it explicitly support your arguments.

It does support my arguments. Or you don't find the word NATURAL explicit enough? Tell me, what part of that word do you not understand?

You are doing what Christians have always done by taking things and redefining or reinterpreting them to suit your own agenda. In the end it's always the same: simple-minded and bigoted attacks based on religious beliefs dearly held but poorly supported.

Have you read humanae vitae?

Says the infallible Nums speaking ex cathedra from his belly-button. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. You don't have anymore authority to define anyone else's relationships than we have to define yours. None of us are attacking your relationships, what drives you to attack others?

If you take the udhr and the rights of children, you would see that the principles stated therein are CONSISTENT. Rant all you want but the principles are CLEAR.

Well, first off, I'm a female and your silly personal attacks--though in very bad taste--don't really bother me. Once again, you resort to personal attacks because you don't have anything of substance to contribute to the discussion.

Sewing a vagina where your penis used to be wouldn't change your IDENTITY.

I have every right to speak about the way that Christians have raped this planet and committed genocide on indigenous peoples everywhere.

You have a right to speak againsts those particular people. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ILL OF ALL CHRISTIANS.

Do you need me to post a definition of bigotry like bewitched?

You seem to think that proselytizing improves the world and that is something for which there is very little evidence and no proof.

Healing the sick, teaching, and in general, helping to raise the quality of life IMPROVES THE WORLD. The bulk of missionary work is in there, not proselytizing.

If you would simply read more about the history of your own religion you will discover that it has a bloody history and that the monolithic Christian church has stood foursquare against every civil rights movement in history.

You pretend to lecture me on my own religion? How presumptous indeed! Must be hormonal.

Tell us how the Crusaders were improving the Earth, what about the Inquisition? The Church was against women's right to own property, against their right to vote, Hell, Nums, the Church at one time maintained that women didn't even have souls. When doctors first were able to fix birth defects like cleft palates and club feet the Church argued against it saying that God made those people crippled because He wanted them that way. Hello? What did Christianity do to the indigenous peoples of the Americas? It was Christianity that accepted slavery based on Scripture--scriptures that are still in the Bible today.

The church was the ONLY institution of learning during the dark ages. Universities where invented by the clergy -- and with it, a contribution to almost all fields of human knowledge.

If it weren't for the church, the ancient hellenistic culture of learning wouldn't have reached your doorstep, and you'd probably be wearing a burqa right now.

It goes both ways you know.

If you are going to be an apologist for the abuses of Christianity down through history you are going to need to start early and pack a lunch.

John paul 2 made an apology enough for all of us.

It was Christians just like yourself who drove me away from the Christianity.

You don't know me and yet I am the source of all your problems, eh? Your general confusion in your life is so sad.

I think the teachings of Jesus are excellent, but hate-mongers have so corrupted His message that most Christians I've met don't even pay lipservice to the example He set.

I'm not about to deny the operation of logic to blow sunshine up your ass, if that's what you mean.

 

[numinus]

I have always loved the two commandments: love god with all your heart and love your neighbor like yourself.

To me, that says we should not be making judgements based on the sexuality of consenting adults. People quote the Bible as saying it is an "abomination". But so is eating shellfish.

Every time there is a topic on homosexuality someone invariably has to start talking about the physical aspect of it. When we are talk about heterosexual activities - no one does that. No one talks about an obsession with a woman's bearded clam. Homosexuals are people, not sexual acts.

This is nonsense.

Here's a fact for you -- the bulk of sexual molestation perpetrated on boys were committed by homosexual men.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you are going to debate me on christianity, you might want to actually know it.

Sin is an external condition that does harm to people. To borrow jesus' analogy, the sick needs a physician in the same way that sinners need forgiveness and redemption. He is criticizing sin while trying to save the sinner.

He forgave the woman, her tormentors and -- from faith -- the entire human existence with nothing more than a mild reminder to sin no more. Did he run after the man who was sinning with the woman? Frankly, that seems irrelevant to the fact of universal forgiveness.

This is a radical departure from judaic law which was the whole point of his ministry.

What a load of dingo kidneys! How did the men who caught the woman fail to catch the man? The fact that Jesus DIDN'T even mention the man is a perfect example of how the Bible stories have been written to support the cultural paradigm of the day. A just God would not punish one person for a sin and let another get away free, but a patriarchal goat-herder religion would do just exactly that.

 

[vyo476]

This is nonsense.

This is, perhaps, where we'll always disagree. Homosexuality is an inborne state of mind, not just a label applied to those who engage in a certain type of behavior.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you are going to debate me on christianity, you might want to actually know it.

Sin is an external condition that does harm to people. To borrow jesus' analogy, the sick needs a physician in the same way that sinners need forgiveness and redemption. He is criticizing sin while trying to save the sinner.

He forgave the woman, her tormentors and -- from faith -- the entire human existence with nothing more than a mild reminder to sin no more. Did he run after the man who was sinning with the woman? Frankly, that seems irrelevant to the fact of universal forgiveness.

This is a radical departure from judaic law which was the whole point of his ministry.

What a load of dingo kidneys! How did the men who caught the woman fail to catch the man? The fact that Jesus DIDN'T even mention the man is a perfect example of how the Bible stories have been written to support the cultural paradigm of the day. A just God would not punish one person for a sin and let another get away free, but a patriarchal goat-herder religion would do just exactly that.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What is it with you and bible-beaters, eh?
The sentence I posted is (again) from the udhr - which you insist is from the bible. How many more times do I need to say this before you give your puny mind leave to understand, eh?

I never said it was from the Bible, it's your interpretation of the meaning of the words that is religiously based.

I really have very little interest reading your opinions of me, or of anything else WITHOUT FACTUAL NOR LOGICAL BASIS.

You have not yet provided any factual basis nor logical proofs to support your religious interpretation of a secular statement. Religion has no factual basis nor logic either, it's about faith.

By all means -- go by my post. For starters, you might want to drop that 'religous dogma' crap since I am not using it in this argument.

You were the one singing the praises of selfless missionaries and how much good they were doing on Earth.

Once again it should be noted as it was earlier in this thread that the Universal Declaration... doesn't mandate discrimination towards gay people,

Of course it doesn't. Saying that the NATURAL family is the fundamental group unit of society in no way discriminates gay people. They can still go on their merry way.

No, they can't go their merry way, they can't go their marry way either because so many countries still deny them the legal right to marry. Denying legal rights to one group of people for no reason but religious bigotry is what was done to black people. It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

It does support my arguments. Or you don't find the word NATURAL explicit enough? Tell me, what part of that word do you not understand?

In light of the fact that homosexual behavior is found in all of the higher animals, in all human cultures all down through history, and the growing body of evidence that it's an ordinary genetic variation in most animals--including the human one, then I guess that "natural" would be a good way to describe it--unless you are a religious bigot. Religions have always been big on condemning things as unnatural, are you old enough to remember when interracial marriage was "unnatural"? It's condemned in the Bible too, why aren't you campaigning against it? You're not campaigning against it because it's accepted now and bashing gay people is the flavor of the month.

Have you read humanae vitae?

Excuse me? Aren't you the one who said "...you might want to drop that 'religous dogma' crap since I am not using it in this argument." Yes, I've perused it, so what? The Pope is just another guy, he's no closer to God than anyone else.

If you take the udhr and the rights of children, you would see that the principles stated therein are CONSISTENT. Rant all you want but the principles are CLEAR.

I don't really think I'm the one ranting here, I accept what the UDHR says and I don't have to redefine the wording by filtering it through my religious dogma.

Sewing a vagina where your penis used to be wouldn't change your IDENTITY.

You are entirely correct, Nums, I always was a female and getting my birth defect surgically repaired was just like getting a cleft palate or club foot repaired. As I noted in a previous post Christianity was dead-set againsy repairing those birth defects too. Well, at least you're consistent. Of course Einstein said that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of a small mind.

You have a right to speak againsts those particular people. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK ILL OF ALL CHRISTIANS.

I've been pretty clear in stating that I think the teachings of Jesus are very good and I appreciate the very few real Christians that I have known in my life who actually pay attention to Jesus' example and try to live by it. As I have noted before it is the hatred exhibited by self-identified Christians that has driven me away from organized Christianity.

Do you need me to post a definition of bigotry like bewitched?

No, I don't think so, you've been giving great examples in almost every one of your posts. At least I have stated that I have met real Christians and that I appreciate them. You, on the other hand, have attacked all gay men and at least one transsexual, because of your religious ideas you have lumped all of them in one catagory: bad. That's bigotry.

Healing the sick, teaching, and in general, helping to raise the quality of life IMPROVES THE WORLD. The bulk of missionary work is in there, not proselytizing.

If that was all they were doing, then I would agree with you, but they're not. They go as missionaries because they want to proselytize, otherwise they could join one of the secular help groups.

You pretend to lecture me on my own religion? How presumptous indeed! Must be hormonal.

If it's hormonal, then what's your excuse? I lecture you because you continually exhibit a large lack of knowledge where the history of your own religion is concerned. Don't feel bad, most Christians don't know diddly-squat about Christian religious history.

The church was the ONLY institution of learning during the dark ages. Universities where invented by the clergy -- and with it, a contribution to almost all fields of human knowledge.

Pish-tush, Nums. The Church caused the Dark Ages by denying education to the masses so that they could maintain their control. The first Universities were started by the Arabic peoples, remember how they were the first ones to invent the "zero" for use in mathematics? When the Crusaders invaded the Middle East they discovered an extraordinary civilization with Universities, medicine, mathematics, and wonderful architecture. The Crusaders were the barbarians.

If it weren't for the church, the ancient hellenistic culture of learning wouldn't have reached your doorstep, and you'd probably be wearing a burqa right now.

Your conclusion isn't supported by history, Nums, it's just wishful thinking.

John paul 2 made an apology enough for all of us.

Now wait a second, you're the one not using religious "crap" right? So how come you're letting the Pope do your apologising? Anyway the Pope only apologized for the past, not for the violence that Christians are committing today.

You don't know me and yet I am the source of all your problems, eh? Your general confusion in your life is so sad.

No, no, you're just an extremely good example of the kind of Christian that scorns the ideas of Jesus and uses the Bible as a weapon against people you don't like.

I'm not about to deny the operation of logic to blow sunshine up your ass, if that's what you mean.

No, that's not what I meant (and what's the "ass" fetish you have that makes you end each one of your posts by referring to asses and anal passages?). I meant what I said: Most of the Christians I have met pay little or no attention to the really difficult things that Jesus commanded them to do and instead they do the easy things like condemning and attacking small minorities on the basis of fallacious interpretations of the Bible.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This is nonsense.

Here's a fact for you -- the bulk of sexual molestation perpetrated on boys were committed by homosexual men.

This is another example of ignorance, people who molest children are pedophiles, not gay or straight. Are you seriously suggesting that the few percent of gay males who like young boys cause more damage than the vast number of heterosexual males who like young girls? Three out of five women will be molested in one way or another in their lifetimes and NONE of them will be attacked by a gay man.

There is nothing that you can accuse gay men of that doesn't have a corollary where heterosexual men are concerned. Let's all remember how the Catholic Church harbored and protected pedophile priests and how hard they have struggled to avoid paying reparations for their illegal and disgusting behavior.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What is it with you and bible-beaters, eh?

Sorry I didn't get to this question sooner, I do try to answer any real question.

You commented that I didn't have the right to speak ill of all Christians and I agree with you, but how do I separate among the more than 3000 sects of Christians in the world today? Mother Theresa, James Dobson, Fred Phelps, and my Mennonite preacher friend all call themselves Christians. Hell's bells, even the KKK folks consider themselves Christians--in fact, according to their website--you can't even join their little hate club unless you are a born again Christian who has "experienced Jesus' love".

So I have looked for another term to use for the people who scorn the teachings of Jesus and use the Bible as a weapon: hence, the name "Bible-beaters".

What's with you and gay men, eh? Every time you post something derogatory it's just about gay men, why? I asked this question before but you didn't answer it. Cat got your tongue?

Since you got upset when I referred to you living in the US, why don't you tell us where you do live?

 

[Coyote]

This is nonsense.

Here's a fact for you -- the bulk of sexual molestation perpetrated on boys were committed by homosexual men.

Are you talking about pedophilia? The BULK?

If so - you are being disengenius.

According to http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm (from a fairly neutral site):

The most parsimonious interpretation of this result is that the heterosexual and homosexual types of pedophilia are substantially more closely related to each other than to the heterosexuality or homosexuality of males who erotically prefer physically mature partners. Also, pedophilia has little in common with homosexuality or heterosexuality in males who prefer physically mature partners.​

In otherwords, pedophiles prefer sex with children, not adults and their orientation is irrelevant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Are you talking about pedophilia? The BULK?

If so - you are being disengenius.

According to http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/freund_etiological.htm (from a fairly neutral site):

The most parsimonious interpretation of this result is that the heterosexual and homosexual types of pedophilia are substantially more closely related to each other than to the heterosexuality or homosexuality of males who erotically prefer physically mature partners. Also, pedophilia has little in common with homosexuality or heterosexuality in males who prefer physically mature partners.​

In otherwords, pedophiles prefer sex with children, not adults and their orientation is irrelevant.

Coyote,
It's very unkind of you to bring science and reason into a discussion about religion, Nums ain't gonna like this!